[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 61 (Monday, April 27, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2420-S2427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1191 for debate only, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1191) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not 
     taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       Corker/Cardin amendment No. 1140, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Religious Freedom

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Congress unanimously passed the 
International Religious Freedom Act in 1989 with a 98-to-0 vote in this 
body for that legislation, including 19 Senators still serving today--
11 Republicans and 8 Democrats. We asserted that religious freedom 
``undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.'' Yet, 
religious freedom today is under attack across the country.
  Political activists are attacking religious freedom as the enemy of 
equality, claiming that laws protecting religious freedom are designed 
to enshrine discrimination in State law. This effort is misinformed, it 
is misguided, and it is misleading. It will serve only to harm 
religious freedom and to demonize religious people, many of whom would 
be allies in the effort to promote equality.
  The attack on religious freedom misunderstands the history and 
importance of religious freedom in America. That story began more than 
400 years ago, as one religious community after another came to these 
shores so they could freely live their faith. As far back as December 
1657, residents of the community known today as Flushing, NY, signed a 
petition called the Flushing Remonstrance. This petition protested a 
ban on certain religious practices that prevented the Quakers from 
worshipping. The petition signers stated that they would let everyone 
decide for themselves how to worship.
  One hundred twenty years later, the original States and the Federal 
Government specifically protected religious freedom in their 
Constitutions. Indeed, the phrase America's Founders chose for the 
first individual right listed in the First Amendment--the free exercise 
of religion--is very important. The free exercise clause is not limited 
to particular exercises of religion or to the exercise of religion by 
certain parties but instead protects the free exercise of religion 
itself. James Madison wrote in 1758 that exercising religion according 
to conviction and conscience is an inalienable right. Two hundred years 
later, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg declared that ``to the 
Founding Fathers, freedom of religion was regarded to be preeminent 
among fundamental rights.''
  This belief in the special importance and preeminent status of 
religious freedom did not end with America's founding generation. In 
his famous 1941 State of the Union Address, President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt asserted that ``the right of every person to worship God in 
his own way'' is an essential human freedom. Just 4 years later, after 
the end of World War II, the United States signed the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights. This crucial document includes religious 
freedom as one of the inalienable rights universal to all members of 
the human family.
  Our last several Presidents have issued annual proclamations 
declaring January 16 Religious Freedom Day. This date marks the 
anniversary of the Virginia General Assembly's adoption of the Virginia 
Statute for Religious Freedom. In this year's proclamation, President 
Obama said that religious freedom is a fundamental liberty and defined 
religious freedom as the right of every person to live and practice 
their faith how they choose. In previous years, President Obama has 
called religious freedom a universal and natural human right and an 
essential part of human dignity. President George W. Bush similarly 
declared that no human freedom is more fundamental than the right to 
freely practice one's religious beliefs. President Clinton said that 
religious freedom is a fundamental human right, a core value

[[Page S2421]]

of our democracy, and essential to our dignity as human beings.
  I want my colleagues to appreciate how robust religious freedom has 
historically been in our country. Article 18 of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights states that religious freedom includes 
``freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or 
private, to manifest . . . religion or belief in teaching, practice, 
worship and observance.''
  In America, religious freedom has always included freedom in both 
belief and behavior, in private and in public, individually and 
collectively. Today's attacks on religious freedom know none of this. 
Instead, they dismiss religious freedom as a sham, as little more than 
an excuse for mean-spirited people who want to discriminate. Today's 
opponents of religious freedom laws either do not know or do not care 
that religious freedom is an integral part of the origin, the identity, 
and the very life of our Nation.
  They are also clearly misinformed about how, even in America, the 
reality of religious freedom has not always matched the promise of 
religious freedom. The truth is that government does many things that 
compromise, burden, and even prohibit the exercise of religion. The 
Flushing Remonstrance was necessary because community leaders allowed 
religious freedom for some but not for others. Government has even 
sometimes passed laws explicitly designed to limit or stamp out 
particular religious practices or religious communities.
  More often, government undermines and restricts the exercise of 
religion through indirect impact. General laws that on their face do 
not explicitly target religion can nonetheless have a profound impact 
when applied to particular religious practices. Zoning ordinances may 
restrict where churches can meet, whether they may expand their meeting 
place, and what services they may offer. Religious institutions may be 
forced to hire individuals who do not share their faith. Regulations 
may prohibit individuals from wearing items required by their faith or 
require employees to work on their Sabbath.
  Government at all levels--Federal, State, and local--is becoming ever 
more intrusive in virtually every facet of life. Unless government is 
mindful of its impact on religious practices, government will become 
increasingly intrusive in matters of religion as well.
  The attack on religious freedom is also misinformed about how 
important religious liberty laws are to protecting the exercise of 
religion.
  Prior to 1990, for more than a century the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the free exercise clause had gradually moved toward 
broader application and stronger protection. In the 19th century, for 
example, the Court said that the First Amendment protected religious 
belief but not religious conduct, even though the First Amendment makes 
no such distinction. The Court subsequently adopted a more unified view 
of religious practice and set a standard that made it difficult for 
government to interfere with either belief or conduct.
  In 1981, the Supreme Court made clear that government ``may justify 
an inroad on religious liberty by showing it is the least restrictive 
means of achieving some compelling state interest.'' This standard was 
important for two reasons. First, it reflected the general importance 
of religious freedom in our country. Second, it applied to both 
religious conduct and religious belief and protected against both 
direct and indirect government burdens and restrictions.
  In a 1990 case entitled ``Employment Division v. Smith,'' the Supreme 
Court regrettably reversed course. Under the Court's new interpretation 
of the First Amendment, as set forth in Smith, the free exercise clause 
applies only when government directly burdens religion with a law 
targeted at religious practice. The clause provides no protection at 
all when government burdens religion indirectly through a generally 
applicable law or regulation. Before the Smith decision, it had been 
difficult but not impossible for government to interfere with the 
exercise of religion. Government had to show that a law or regulation 
burdening religion furthered a compelling State interest and was the 
least restrictive means of achieving that interest. I might add, under 
the Court's new Smith standard, however, government can make religious 
practice not only difficult but even impossible. Provided government 
does not specifically target religion for disfavor, it can pass all 
sorts of laws that interfere with worship, practice, or belief.
  It would be hard to overstate the impact of Smith. In 1992, the 
Congressional Research Service found that as a result of Smith, ``free 
exercise claims have become markedly unsuccessful.'' Remember that the 
government has its biggest impact on religion not through direct 
suppression but, rather, by indirect restriction--by disregarding 
religious practice as something needing special attention. Under Smith, 
government can do exactly what the First Amendment forbids and prohibit 
the free exercise of religion so long as it does so through generally 
applicable laws rather than laws targeted at specific groups.
  Congress responded to Smith by enacting the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, or RFRA. I had a lot to do with that. RFRA's standard 
mirrored what the Supreme Court had only a few years earlier said the 
First Amendment required--namely, that government may impose a 
substantial burden on the exercise of religion only if it is the least 
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose.
  RFRA does not automatically protect any specific exercise of 
religion, nor does it automatically prohibit any specific government 
action that burdens religion. RFRA sets a standard that requires 
balancing government action against religious freedom and puts a thumb 
on the scale in favor of religious freedom. RFRA leaves it to the 
courts, in individual cases based on real facts, to determine whether a 
particular exercise of religion or a particular governmental action is 
more important.
  In 1997, the Supreme Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores that RFRA 
applies only to the Federal Government. This meant that once again 
religious practice was vulnerable to virtually any restriction, 
regulation, or prohibition by State or local government. States 
responded to the Flores decision just as Congress had responded to the 
Smith decision: They immediately began enacting State religious 
restoration acts that set the same standard for State and local 
governments that the Federal statute still imposes on the Federal 
Government, the Federal statute called the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. These State RFRAs differ in a few minor ways from the 
Federal RFRA but are identical to the Federal RFRA in the core 
provision that really matters--the standard that government must 
satisfy in order to burden religious exercise. Under all of these 
statutes, government action that burdens religion must be the least 
restrictive means of achieving a compelling government purpose.
  I want my colleagues to understand two things about these religious 
freedom laws: First, States are enacting State-level Religious Freedom 
Restoration Acts for the same reason Congress did. Without such laws, 
every exercise of religion is vulnerable to restriction or even 
prohibition by government. Second, State versions of RFRA operate the 
same way the Federal statute does. They set a standard and then leave 
that standard for courts to apply in individual cases with real facts. 
In every case, the party claiming RFRA protection must show that 
government action imposes a substantial burden on his or her exercise 
of religion, and the government must show that this burden is the least 
restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. 
Without this protection, government action will trump religious 
practice in almost every case. With this protection, government action 
will have to accommodate religious practice in at least some cases.
  Those attacking religious freedom today are completely misinformed 
about why these laws are passed and how they work to protect religious 
freedom. They want people to believe that RFRA was passed to provide 
cover for discrimination masquerading as religious practice and to 
therefore oppose efforts to pass or strengthen State-level RFRAs. That 
account is complete fiction. RFRA was passed so that the fundamental 
inalienable right to practice religion can have at least some 
protection.
  What would happen if we treated the free speech clause of the First 
Amendment the way these activists treat the

[[Page S2422]]

free exercise clause of the First Amendment? No one would be protected 
against government restrictions on speech because a few people might 
say things the rest of us don't like.
  In addition to being misinformed about religious freedom in America 
and how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects it, the attack 
on religious freedom today is misguided because discrimination--not 
religious freedom--is the real problem.
  I am sure my colleagues have heard the sound bite that RFRA legalizes 
discrimination. NBC News, for example, reported last year that the 
Arizona RFRA ``would have permitted businesses in the state to deny 
service to gays and lesbians for religious beliefs.''
  I explained how RFRA works to make crystal clear that this claim is 
false. Neither the Federal Government nor any State RFRA legalizes, 
permits or prohibits anything. RFRA sets a standard that government 
must meet when its actions burden the exercise of religion. Courts 
apply that standard in individual cases based on real facts to decide 
whether the religious practice or the government action is more 
important.
  I need to make one more important distinction before looking at 
another reason why this claim is false. Those attacking religious 
freedom today use a very broad brush when raising the specter that 
businesses will ``deny service.'' They apparently want us to believe 
that businesses everywhere are intent on turning away customers, on not 
doing business with certain people. That not only makes no sense, but 
it just plain is not true.
  Instead, the controversy exists only with regard to a few businesses 
that supply particular goods or services for weddings. A small number 
of business owners apparently feel that, while they gladly serve the 
general public and provide goods and services to all types of 
customers, providing certain specific goods or services for a same-sex 
wedding would amount to supporting or endorsing something inconsistent 
with their religious beliefs. Think what you want about those business 
owners, I want my colleagues to know that RFRA does not protect their 
decision to refuse service today.
  Here is what has to happen for a case pitting RFRA against a claim 
discrimination to exist. The particular State where the business is 
located must have a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity in places of public accommodation such 
as businesses. The State must also have not only a Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act but one that applies between private parties. The 
business would have to violate the antidiscrimination law and, if the 
business were sued, argue that the antidiscrimination law imposed a 
substantial burden on the exercise of religion. Only then would a judge 
decide whether--in that case based on its specific facts--the 
antidiscrimination law or the business owner's religious beliefs were 
more important.
  Do you see why the claim that RFRA, by itself, legalizes 
discrimination is absolutely, completely false? Not only does RFRA not 
legalize anything, the situation in which RFRA would even be involved 
does not exist anywhere in America today. Right now, according to the 
Human Rights Campaign, 17 States have the necessary antidiscrimination 
law, and only 4 of those 17 have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 
And of those four, none has a RFRA that applies to lawsuits between 
private parties. In other words, the number of States today in which a 
business could look to RFRA to justify discrimination is precisely 
zero.
  Moreover, the current controversy, misinformed and misguided as it 
is, has no doubt diminished the likelihood that States with 
antidiscrimination laws will now enact religious freedom laws. 
Discrimination, not religious freedom, is the real problem. Despite 
what the activists want everyone to believe, Americans practice 
religion every day in innumerable ways that have nothing whatsoever to 
do with anyone's sexual orientation or gender identity. In the very few 
situations in which religious freedom and discrimination might overlap, 
RFRA would actually be the way to sort out the conflict--the mechanism 
to balance these competing interests. Even though the exercise of 
religion is a fundamental and inalienable right, it is not absolute. 
Many courts have found that government has a compelling interest in 
prohibiting discrimination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an excellent analysis of 
this point by David Rivkin and Professor Elizabeth Price Foley that 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record following 
my remarks.
  Here is the bottom line. The situation that activists want everyone 
to believe is sweeping the country cannot exist anywhere in America 
today. If the day ever comes when that situation does arise, many 
applying RFRA would place freedom from discrimination over freedom of 
religion by a wide margin.
  The attack on religious freedom today is not only misinformed about 
religion freedom in America and how laws such as RFRA protect that 
freedom, it is not only misguided in presenting religious freedom 
rather than discrimination as the real problem and RFRA as the culprit, 
but it is also misleading in broadly painting religious people as mean-
spirited bigots. That is wrong. That is just plain wrong.
  It is also unfortunate because many Americans believe in both 
equality and religious freedom and could be allies in seeking to 
maximize both. I voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act last 
Congress after working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to 
strengthen its provisions protecting religious freedom. Earlier this 
year, the Utah State Legislature passed and Governor Gary Herbert 
signed a law prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing while 
also protecting religious freedom.
  How did we go from religious freedom being a fundamental and 
inalienable right to religious freedom laws being attacked as un-
American? How did we go from religious freedom being an essential human 
right that undergirds our Nation's very existence to activists calling 
laws that protect religious freedom dangerous and even contemptuous?
  Those attacking laws that protect religious freedom would deny any 
legal protections for anyone to exercise religion in any way today 
because a few people might someday attempt to exercise their religion 
in a way that the courts would likely reject. This is a misinformed, 
misguided, and misleading campaign that will only damage religious 
freedom and demonize many who would work toward maximizing both 
equality and freedom for all Americans.
  I was the prime sponsor in the Senate of the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. I went to Senator Kennedy. He was a friend, and we 
joined on many pieces of legislation that were in the best interests of 
everybody in America. At first, he said: I am not joining on that bill. 
Then I kept talking to him about it and how important it was. Finally, 
he said: Yes, I am going to be a prime cosponsor on that bill. There 
are many other prime cosponsors on that bill.
  When that bill was signed on the South Lawn of the White House by 
President Clinton, one of the most proud people on Earth on that 
signing day happened to be Ted Kennedy, who knew that he had done 
right, who knew that it was right to protect the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. And I know it is right. That is one reason we fought 
so hard for it, and it passed 97 to 3, if I recall it correctly--almost 
unanimously--and unanimously in the House, as far as I know.
  It is time for us to wake up and realize that religious freedom is 
under attack in this country. It is under attack because people don't 
understand the Constitution and people don't give a darn about the 
Constitution. It is under attack because some groups think they can get 
ahead by attacking religious freedom. Frankly, we ought to decry that, 
and we all need to stand up for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 
which upholds the first basic law of freedom in our Bill of Rights.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 9, 2015]

               Gay Rights, Religious Freedom and the Law

          (By David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley)

       There is a better route to protections than the battle in 
     Indiana.
       Debates about the Indiana and Arkansas Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Acts, or

[[Page S2423]]

     RFRAs, have regrettably pitted religious freedom against gay 
     rights. Critics claim the laws provide a license to 
     discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender 
     (LGBT) individuals. But this criticism shouldn't be aimed at 
     the religious-freedom laws, which don't license 
     discrimination based on sexual orientation or anything else.
       Those wanting to advance LGBT rights should focus on 
     enacting laws that bar discrimination. If there is a legal 
     ``license'' to discriminate based on sexual orientation, it 
     is because few jurisdictions today provide protection against 
     such discrimination, or because the Constitution may immunize 
     such behavior in certain circumstances.
       There is no federal law prohibiting private discrimination 
     based on sexual orientation. An executive order by President 
     Obama in 2014 bans such discrimination only for federal 
     workers and contractors. About 20 states and some 
     municipalities prohibit sexual-orientation discrimination in 
     workplaces and public accommodations. But the majority of 
     states still don't proscribe discrimination based on sexual 
     orientation, though discrimination based on race, gender, 
     ethnicity or national origin is banned.
       The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed by 
     overwhelming bipartisan majorities and signed by President 
     Clinton in 1993. It represented a backlash against the 
     Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. 
     Smith. That decision held that the First Amendment's Free 
     Exercise Clause doesn't allow a religious exemption from laws 
     of general applicability--e.g., compulsory military service, 
     or prohibitions on drug use or animal cruelty--even if those 
     laws substantially burden religious exercise.
       The federal RFRA law supplanted Smith, declaring that the 
     government could substantially burden religious exercise only 
     upon proving a ``compelling'' government interest for doing 
     so, and using only the ``least restrictive means'' of 
     furthering that interest. The Supreme Court, for example, 
     recently affirmed that the federal RFRA allowed Hobby Lobby, 
     a corporation closely held by religious owners, to refuse 
     participation in ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate, which 
     would have required the company to provide contraceptives 
     that may destroy an already-fertilized egg.
       Because the federal RFRA applies only to federal actions, 
     20 states have passed their own religious-freedom laws 
     designed to provide the same protection against state-imposed 
     religious burdens. Another 11 states have implemented similar 
     protections through court decisions, based on state 
     constitutions.
       So why have the latest religious-freedom laws been so 
     controversial? RFRA has become a political focal point for 
     pent-up anger over the paucity of legal protections against 
     LGBT discrimination. A specific controversy is over the 
     application of such laws to lawsuits between private parties.
       Indiana's RFRA applies ``regardless of whether the state or 
     any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.'' 
     Federal RFRA doesn't clearly apply to such private disputes, 
     and federal courts are divided on whether it should. Arkansas 
     adopted language identical to the federal RFRA.
       Applying religious-freedom laws to private disputes has 
     stirred fears that businesses will be able to defend 
     discriminatory behavior when LGBT individuals sue them. This 
     fear is greatly overblown. First, in states or localities 
     where there is no law banning sexual-orientation 
     discrimination, individuals and businesses are allowed to 
     discriminate, with or without a RFRA.
       Second, where it's illegal to discriminate, a religious-
     freedom defense requires proving that the antidiscrimination 
     statute ``substantially burdens'' religion.
       Third, even if it does, courts routinely conclude that 
     preventing discrimination is a compelling interest, so the 
     LGBT plaintiff wins. RFRA thus doesn't change outcomes--only 
     laws banning sexual-orientation discrimination will.
       Such laws won't eliminate all legal questions, however. 
     Those engaged in activities with a strong expressive 
     component--e.g., officiating at a wedding--may claim that 
     their First Amendment free-speech or association rights trump 
     antidiscrimination statutes. Some of these claims may prove 
     successful.
       Moreover, state and federal law allows individuals to 
     refuse to provide certain services, such as abortions, based 
     on moral objections. Similar conscience-based protections may 
     eventually be demanded to accommodate moral objections to 
     participation in same-sex weddings by the likes of wedding 
     planners, photographers or bakers.
       Americans have generally settled on the proper reach of 
     statutes prohibiting race, gender, ethnicity or national 
     origin-based discrimination by banning it in places of 
     employment or public accommodation. With this consensus in 
     mind, states and the federal government should consider 
     statutes prohibiting in similar circumstances sexual-
     orientation discrimination.
       Religious-freedom laws merely recognizing religious 
     liberty--a centerpiece of liberal society--would then be more 
     likely to become as universally accepted as they were in the 
     1990s.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, while the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee is here, I want him to know of my admiration for 
him for trying to work together in a bipartisan way on an especially 
thorny issue, this Iranian nuclear negotiation.
  I read in today's paper that there are a lot of people who are trying 
to torpedo the chairman's good work by basically bringing up all kinds 
of poison pill amendments. If the chairman's conclusion is that he is 
going to stick with the unanimous product that came out of this 
committee, then I will be with him to keep that product clean so it can 
go forward in the bipartisan way in which the chairman brought it to 
the floor.


                             Takata Airbags

  Mr. President, I am going to speak on a different subject today. It 
is not as pleasant as the remarks I addressed to the chairman, and it 
is on a completely different subject matter. It is about the defective 
airbags manufactured by the Takata Corporation which are exploding in 
people's faces and our collective effort to get them out of cars.
  Instead of saving a life, these airbags--when they explode--either 
maim or kill because of the defective construction. When the airbag 
explodes, metal is coming out of the airbag like shrapnel and hitting 
the occupant of the car--either the driver or the passenger.
  Last November, we had a hearing in the commerce committee about these 
rupturing airbags and the recalls. The number of vehicles recalled due 
to the defective Takata airbags is going to be in the record books as 
one of the largest in American history.
  At that hearing, we saw that instead of preventing these deaths and 
injuries, the opposite was happening. Interestingly, many of these 
incidents are happening in vehicles exposed to persistent high heat and 
humidity.
  This Senator is from Florida, so it is, sadly, no surprise that 
Florida has been the epicenter of these incidents. Earlier this year, I 
came to the floor and reported that Takata had received unconfirmed 
reports of 64 injuries and 5 deaths as a result of the exploding 
airbags. At the time, these numbers from Takata were far greater than 
what had been reported. Takata recently provided an update to the 
committee, and I have new numbers.
  According to the most recent data as of the end of January, Takata 
had identified 40 more alleged incidents of rupturing airbags, 
including 1 death. This brings the total number of alleged injuries 
from 64 to 105 and the total number of alleged deaths to 6. As one 
would expect, 17 of the 40 newly reported incidents provided by Takata 
to our committee occurred in Florida. That brings the total number of 
alleged incidents of exploding Takata airbags in Florida--just in 
Florida--to 35, including 1 that caused a death.
  Now, these injuries have been very serious. I am not talking about a 
minor little nick. These injuries include facial fractures, blindness, 
a broken sternum, and even quadriplegia. This Senator has visited with 
one of his constituents--a big, strapping, healthy firefighter who will 
no longer be a firefighter because he does not have sight in one of his 
eyes. But even the new numbers I just gave do not paint the full 
picture.
  In fact, Reuters recently reported that another Takata airbag in 
Florida ruptured just last month. The figures I reported earlier were 
as of the end of last January. The victim who was injured last month 
was in a 2003 Honda Civic. He had a 1\1/2\-inch piece of metal shrapnel 
lodged into his neck after the airbag exploded. He was airlifted to the 
hospital and the doctors were able to remove the shrapnel, but now he 
has a big scar and a constant reminder that this incident could and 
should have been prevented.
  The death that occurred in Florida was due to shrapnel cutting the 
jugular vein of the victim. When the police got to that accident, 
instead of thinking it was a traffic accident, they looked at the 
driver and thought a homicide had just occurred. It didn't occur to 
them that shrapnel from an exploding airbag killed the driver.
  Honda has informed us that they are sending their recall notices out 
in both English and Spanish in order to more effectively reach 
consumers. We appreciate what Takata has done in trying

[[Page S2424]]

to ramp up their production of replacement inflators. After that Honda 
announcement, Honda also started an ad campaign in both English and 
Spanish to remind owners to have their recalled airbag inflators 
replaced, but obviously more still needs to be done.
  We need to get to the root cause of the problem, that is what we need 
to do, and we need to make sure we know why these defective airbag 
inflators are failing. It may be the inflator or it may be the 
propellant inside. We need to know. So, yes, we need more replacement 
inflators, but we need to make sure they are actually safe replacement 
inflators instead of potentially producing more defective inflators.
  It is my understanding that Honda and others are taking steps to 
ensure the safety of the replacement inflators. Well, that needs to 
happen right now and be validated right away by an independent third 
party. We need to make sure we are able to prevent defects like this in 
the future.
  I am going to stay on Takata. This Senator is going to stay on the 
automakers. This Senator is going to stay on the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration to do exactly that. But for right now, I 
urge anybody listening to me--if a defect is identified and you receive 
a recall notice, get your car into the dealership for repair just as 
quickly as you can. I also want folks to know that even if they have 
not received a notice from Takata, they should go to the Web site, 
safecars.gov and put in their car's VIN number to check and see if it 
is subject to this or any other recall. That is imperative.
  We are continuing to monitor this situation. We are going through 
tens of thousands of pages of documents related to this defect. I will 
keep the Senate updated.
  I am pleased to report that the Senate is very close to approving S. 
304, the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act. This bipartisan 
legislation, which Chairman Thune and I authored, would provide 
financial incentives for whistleblowers in the automotive sector to 
step forward if they see a manufacturer that is hiding or failing to 
address a dangerous defect.
  Certainly none of us needs to be reminded about the ignition switch 
defect coverup at General Motors. They hid that defect for a decade, 
and at least 87 people died because of it. This bill will hopefully 
help prevent such coverups in the future.
  This bill, S. 304, is a small but meaningful step toward automobile 
safety. I hope my colleagues will urge their constituents to check on 
those Takata airbags by going online, and I urge my colleagues as well 
to clear this commonsense legislation. I certainly urge the House to do 
so as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator 
Coats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am just going to speak for a few minutes. 
I am happy to defer to the Senator from Tennessee, but it shouldn't 
take more than 2 or 3 minutes.
  If the Senator is interested, this is this week's installment of my 
``Waste of the Week'' speech. I come to the floor every week to point 
out some spending of taxpayer dollars that perhaps we should absolutely 
save. The cost to the taxpayers, as I will point out shortly, is in the 
tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars on programs 
that have already been identified by government agencies as worthless, 
fraudulent, unnecessary, and wasteful. While we have been unable--and 
the Senator from Tennessee was a very pivotal part of this effort--to 
come to an agreement on dealing with the larger issue of saving our 
country from insolvency down the line, the very least we can do is to 
point out those areas where we are spending money that absolutely does 
not need to be spent and can be returned to the taxpayer. This week's 
waste of the week is such that I can't keep from chuckling over how 
this could happen, but it happens.
  Everybody has heard about Ponce de Leon's search for the fountain of 
youth. Obviously, that hasn't happened. A recently released Social 
Security Inspector General's report found that 6.5 million individuals 
over the age of 112 still have active Social Security numbers. How can 
this happen? Well, it happened because in 1936 when the program 
started, there were some people even from the mid-1800s who were 
enrolled in Social Security, and they have never been taken off the 
rolls. Now, obviously, these people are not all receiving checks, but 
it opens the prospect for fraud and waste and people getting these 
numbers, using them, and then receiving Social Security benefits 
illegally.
  In this inspector general's report, the Social Security 
Administration is faulted for poorly managing data on ``number holders 
who exceeded maximum reasonable life expectancies and were likely 
deceased.''
  Well, to put it mildly, if we have 6.5 million people in America who 
are over the age of 112, my guess is that most of those people, if not 
all of those people, are deceased--not likely deceased but are, in 
fact, deceased.
  Of those 6.5 million, the Social Security Administration inspector 
general has determined that nearly 3,900 numbers were run through the 
U.S. Government's E-Verify system for people more than a century old. 
The E-Verify system is used when someone applies for a job. So that 
means thousands of people over 100 years old are applying for these new 
jobs. Obviously, someone is fraudulently using the system to report a 
Social Security number for someone over 112 years of age who is in the 
E-Verify system as applying for a job.
  Auditors also discovered nearly 67,000 Social Security numbers in 
recent years were used to report wages for people other than the 
cardholders themselves. The workers reported about $3 billion in 
earnings between 2006 and 2011, and then those earnings are used to 
calculate their Social Security benefits.
  Obviously, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Auditors have 
proposed that the Social Security Administration take action to correct 
death records, but the Social Security Administration says it doesn't 
want to divert resources away from efforts to improve payment accuracy. 
I suggest the Social Security Administration might want to reassess 
their assessment.
  A gaping hole such as this undermines the confidence of the American 
people in our government and in the way we run this business of 
government in both the Social Security Administration and the Federal 
Government at large.
  Government agencies have estimated that the Social Security 
Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2 billion, likely 
more, if this problem is corrected.
  So as I do each week, we keep adding to our gauge of savings that now 
are approaching very close to $50 billion, just over several weeks of 
pointing out waste and fraud that has been documented by nonpolitical, 
neutral Federal agencies. We keep adding more. We are approaching $50 
billion. Our goal is $100 billion. I think we will go way past that if 
I keep doing this every week.
  In order to help correct the problem, I have introduced legislation, 
along with Senator Carper and others, which will update the Social 
Security system and ensure accuracy in Federal records, not just in 
Social Security but in other agencies as well. I am just looking at one 
agency. Wait until we get into some of the others.
  The key provisions of our bill include allowing Federal agencies 
access to the complete death database, because under current law, only 
agencies that directly handle beneficiary payments may have access to 
the complete database. The act allows all appropriate Federal agencies 
to have access to the complete death data program for integrity 
purposes as well as for other needs such as public safety and health. 
It requires the use of death data to curb improper payments. Our 
legislation establishes procedures to ensure more accurate death data.
  As I have said before, by simply correcting the death records, the 
Social Security Administration can reduce fraud and save at least $2 
billion.
  This is an area that is ripe for reform, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation and eliminate this waste, along with the other 
$49 billion we have identified in just the last few weeks. We would be 
doing the taxpayers a great service while making

[[Page S2425]]

our government the efficient, effective government it needs to be, 
particularly in these times of lack of fiscal discipline.
  I thank the Chair for the time. I also thank my colleague from 
Tennessee for giving me this time.
  Mr. President, I know we have important legislation on the floor this 
week. This ``Waste of the Week'' speech is kind of tongue in cheek. We 
are moving on to legislation that has historic consequences for the 
future of America, for our own future, our children's future, and our 
grandchildren's future.
  The debate that will take place this week, led by Senator Corker from 
Tennessee regarding the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons capability 
is, in my time of service here in the Senate and in Congress, I think 
the most consequential piece of legislative debate that I will ever 
enter into. It will have enormous historical consequences, and we need 
to get it right.
  So I commend my colleague Senator Corker for his efforts in this 
regard. He has moved the legislation through the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee with total bipartisan support, which is absolutely 
key to the success of our efforts and necessary to prevent a 
catastrophic activity taking place in Iran.
  So I appreciate the time to speak, while not focusing all of my 
attention and effort, as I hope all of my colleagues will, to this 
extraordinary challenge that we have before us this week that will 
determine the future for country and maybe the world.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator for his 
continual focus on fiscal issues. I know he spent a great deal of time 
with a handful of folks at the White House two summers ago trying to 
come up with a plan to really save our Nation.
  I actually was just standing up a minute ago. I was about to suggest 
the absence of a quorum until I saw the Senator from Indiana, so the 
Senator can speak as long as he wishes on these waste issues. I thank 
him for the kind of Senator he is and his continual efforts to save our 
Nation from a national security standpoint and also our greatest 
national security risk right now which is our inability to get our 
fiscal house in order.
  So I thank the Senator for this, and I look forward to the debate 
over the next several days.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, this week we are going to, in my view, deal 
with one of the most concerning, one of the most dangerous, one of the 
most treacherous issues we will face--that I will face as a Member of 
the U.S. Senate and, certainly, has been in the short period of time I 
have had the honor of representing Kansans here in our Nation's 
Capital. It is the question of Iran. It is the question of their 
ability to acquire nuclear weapons.
  On this question of Iran, American policymakers are approaching a 
number of fateful decisions--in fact, a series of decisions that I 
think have significant consequences. The implications of the choices 
that will be made by our Nation and others will determine events today, 
tomorrow, and well into the future, both regionally and globally. As I 
indicated, the consequences will be felt for decades--generations, 
perhaps--to come.
  Such significant consequences require each step to be planted with 
great care and consideration. I fear that the recent American march 
into nuclear negotiations with Iran has been misguided, drawing our 
country and the global community into a dangerous position.
  American foreign policy with respect to Iran has long been centered 
around the goal of preventing Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapon 
capability. Today, this policy has weathered and has been allowed to be 
weakened. It has become a position of delayed tolerance of a nuclear 
Iran. This policy deterioration was made clear in recent weeks by 
global affairs minds no less than former Secretaries of State George 
Shultz and Henry Kissinger, who wrote: ``. . . negotiations that began 
12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian 
capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement 
that concedes that very capability. . . . ''

  The administration's stated goal of securing a 1-year nuclear 
development breakout period reveals a shift from firm disapproval to 
acquiescence. The result, in my view, is a world that is much less 
safe, a Middle East that is further prone to violent conflict, and an 
international order trending toward nuclear armaments rather than 
walking away from it.
  Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif pointed this out last week in his 
writing in the New York Times:

       Nothing in international politics functions in a vacuum. 
     Security cannot be pursued at the expense of the insecurity 
     of others. No nation can achieve its interests without 
     considering the interests of others.
       Nowhere are these dynamics more evident than in the wider 
     Persian Gulf region.

  That is the Foreign Minister of Iran speaking. Mr. Zarif's words 
apply to the pending nuclear question and the budding proposal to 
exchange sanctions relief for a temporary suspension of Iranian nuclear 
development. The decisions made by Iran and the P5+1 participants in 
these nuclear negotiations are being considered and acted upon and 
responded to by others in the region and others around the globe. As 
Iran's neighboring states are looking to increase arms purchases for 
use in the ongoing conflicts in their region, international concerns 
about a nuclear-capable Iran are not merely passive policy critiques. 
They are warnings worthy of our careful, determined consideration.
  I would suggest and I will ask what we must ask: Does this pending 
accord make the world safer or more dangerous? Does it bring Iran 
closer to or further from nuclear capabilities? Can the world trust 
Iran to uphold its commitments? Will the terms of the deal be 
sufficiently verifiable to know if they do not?
  Ultimately, we must ask if this deal would stabilize tensions in the 
Middle East or accelerate them. These questions are greater than any 
grappling things that go on between Congress and the President, between 
Republicans and Democrats. This cannot and should not be a politically 
partisan issue. It should be one of serious consideration about long-
term consequences to America, its allies, and our enemies.
  The nuclear accord will have serious and lasting consequences for us 
all. It is incumbent upon American leadership to guide these efforts in 
the safest possible direction. In my view, our trajectory to date has 
been uncertain. In response, Congress has insisted--and rightfully so--
that it oversee and participate in the process, especially in any 
decision regarding the lifting of sanctions.
  The President's efforts to ignore or sidestep the legislative 
branch's constitutional role in foreign policy are troublesome. Many, 
including me, have been asking why Congress lacks the ability to block 
or more forcefully respond to a potential bad deal or to do more to 
limit the President's ability to act unilaterally. Unfortunately, the 
law resulting from the previously passed sanctions legislation allows 
the President to waive sanctions under certain conditions--the 
legislation that we passed.
  Let me say that again. The legislation that we passed over a period 
of time--and I am a Member of the banking committee involved in this 
legislation--allowed a President--this or other Presidents--to waive 
those sanctions under considerations of national security. What we 
regrettably discovered is that Congress provided way too much 
flexibility to a President too willing to ignore the concerns of the 
legislature, too willing to find a reason to waive the sanctions.
  But there remains reason of hope that Congress will play a 
constructive and important part in this matter. Despite opposition from 
the White House, bipartisan efforts led by Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee Chairman Senator Corker have produced legislation providing 
for a congressional review process. The bill had broad bipartisan 
support, and perhaps that makes it impervious to President Obama's 
initial threats of a veto.

[[Page S2426]]

  Any increased role by Congress is welcomed, from my perspective. For 
too long, Congress has deferred to Executive action when it comes to 
foreign relations and foreign affairs--not just this Congress and this 
President, but many Congresses and many Presidents. In my view, 
Congress has failed its constitutional authority to oversee a 
President's foreign policy efforts.
  So this increased role for Congress is welcome. And for anyone who is 
skeptical of the framework released by the State Department in early 
April or curious about what the parameters might look like in a final 
deal, Congress will have the ability to see, to know, and to let the 
American people, and, in fact, the world know what these agreements 
might contain.
  After the presumed passage of the Iran Nuclear Review Act--the 
legislation we have been considering this week--if it passes and the 
case is that a deal is ultimately struck and an agreement is struck by 
the June 30 deadline between the administration, the P5+1, and Iran, 
Congress will have 30 days to review that agreement.
  As we began late last week and early this week to consider this 
legislation, the point in being here at this stage is to indicate that 
while I wish there were more opportunities for congressional 
involvement in the process, what the committee has presented to us 
gives us the starting point, the beginning point, and the opportunity 
to explore fully what the administration has been negotiating in 
secret.
  I have attended the meetings--the so-called classified briefings--and 
it is hard to leave those meetings with an understanding or 
appreciation or more knowledge of what is in the potential agreement 
with Iran than before I walked in the door. What will transpire this 
week on the Senate floor gives me and others the opportunity--and 
ultimately the American people--to know a lot more.
  As this process has been developed and as we implement it here on the 
Senate floor, it is important that we use this time to carefully 
examine the results of any nuclear negotiations and ask ourselves this 
question: Is the world better off as a result of that agreement? Is 
peace more assured, and does humanity have a better future?
  We don't have the agreement in front of us yet, but what we do this 
week sets the stage for that review, for that understanding, and for 
the ability to reject, if necessary. What that agreement contains is 
important. It is encouraging to me to see that the Senate--the 
Congress, in fact--is stepping forward to play its rightful 
constitutional role in foreign affairs.
  I look forward to the discussion this week, but more importantly, I 
look forward to the passage of legislation that allows us to have a 
much greater say, much more significant knowledge, and a better 
opportunity to have understanding about a potential treacherous path 
that our country may be headed toward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas. I 
think he has articulated about as well as anybody the importance of 
passing the legislation on the floor.
  Many of my colleagues, I think, unlike the Senator from Kansas, in 
some ways fail to recognize that when we put the sanctions in place 
that brought them to the table, in the meanwhile they were going from 
164 centrifuges back in 2003 to 19,000 centrifuges today. What Congress 
did in a bipartisan way was put four tranches of sanctions in place to 
begin putting pressure on them to stop and to get them to the table. We 
have done that, but in each of those cases, we gave the President 
unilaterally the ability to waive or suspend the sanctions ad 
infinitum--forever.
  It is something that my friend Senator Kaine from Virginia recognized 
in our meetings as we had the Secretary come forward and talk to us 
about the fact that, yes, you are going to have a vote on this. But we 
all recognized that was 4 to 5 to 6 years down the road after the 
sanctions regime had been totally alleviated.
  I just want to thank the Senator for being so articulate in his 
comments.
  The fact is that without this legislation--without this legislation 
passing--Congress will have zero. The President will go straight to the 
U.N. Security Council with the suspensions in his hands that we have 
already given them and implement whatever kind of deal he wants to 
implement.
  I have had a great conversation with my friend from Virginia today. I 
think this bill obviously does give Congress, as the Senator from 
Kansas mentioned, its rightful role. But I think it also gives the 
President a backstop when he is negotiating so that people will 
understand that we are going to play that role.
  So I thank the Senator very, very much for his comments and for the 
constructive way he is on so many of the big issues we deal with and 
for his cosponsorship of this very important legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor. I see my friend from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I appreciate the comments of Chairman Corker, and I appreciate the 
two punch lines of the Senator from Kansas to his argument that I am 
strongly in support of. The first is that this is a very momentous 
topic, and there are many, many questions about an ultimate deal that 
we have to grapple with. Second, it is so much of the moment that the 
congressional sanctions themselves are so wrapped up in the discussion 
that Congress must have a role to fulfill our constitutional obligation 
and to actually do what we essentially set in motion by passing the 
congressional sanctions. We must have a role.
  So to the chairman and to all who are supporting the bill, I think we 
have got it in a good place on the floor, and I am proud to be a strong 
supporter of it.
  The only issue on which I would offer a slightly different take than 
the Senator from Kansas is this. I think by all objective standards, 
the negotiations to this point have produced a status quo that has been 
better than where we were before the negotiations. If you think back to 
before November 2013, Iran--although under punishing sanctions--was 
moving forward in a very dramatic way to build up an architecture. 
While the sanctions were hurting the Iranian economy, there was some 
argument that it was not slowing down their nuclear program. It was 
accelerating it because they were feeling isolated.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel appeared before the United Nations 
and gave a very famous speech in which he talked about the stockpile of 
uranium that was enriched to a 20-percent level. We drew a bomb and 
showed a level of enrichment that was getting to an extremely dangerous 
place. That is where we were before President Obama started these 
negotiations with the P5+1 in November 2013.
  At the time the negotiations were started, there were some who said 
they were misguided or a historic mistake or a giveaway. But, by now, 
virtually all--even those who were skeptical at the beginning--would 
acknowledge that the negotiations have actually led to a status quo 
significantly better than before November 2013. The 20-percent enriched 
uranium stockpile Iran had has been rolled back to a 5-percent 
enrichment level. Many of the centrifuges and facilities where nuclear 
weapons and nuclear activities were occurring have either been disabled 
or in some way have been reconfigured so that they are not continuing 
to produce more material that would cause significant concern. Since 
November 2013 the international community has been able to achieve 
significantly greater inspections of the Iranian nuclear activity than 
they had before.
  So while we still have significant questions about an ultimate deal 
and Congress's role, we have a much better handle on their program. 
They have rolled back that program to a significant degree, and even 
skeptics of the original deal acknowledge that. I do think that is 
important to mention.
  Congress needs to fulfill its article I powers, but we also need to 
have the President do the diplomacy that article II allows him to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2427]]

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Kaine and Senator 
Corker.
  This is the second day that we have been debating the nuclear 
oversight bill. Members have had a chance to express their concerns. 
They have had a chance to put forward amendments, to file them at this 
particular moment. We have been working with several Members to try to 
see whether we can work out an orderly way for the consideration of 
those amendments. I want all of the Members to know we are open for 
business. Senator Corker has been meeting with Members, and I have been 
talking to Members. We hope we can find a way to move this bill forward 
tomorrow for the consideration of amendments.

  I would urge Members--we are not encouraging amendments because we 
think we took up these issues in the committee and we worked out a 
bipartisan bill to get this done. But please talk to us so we can try 
to work out in an orderly way the consideration of amendments starting 
tomorrow and hopefully finish the bill shortly thereafter.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________